li 1111 I
CADERNOS
CENTRO DE ESTUDOS RURAIS E URBANOS (USP)
Editores: Profa. Ora. Maria Laura Pereira de Queiroz Profa. Olga Rodrigues de Moraes Von Simson
Endereço: Departamento de Ciências Sociais (USP)
Ca•ixa Postal 8. 105 01000 São Paulo , SP.
REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ESTUDOS POLíTICOS
Publicação da Universidade Federal de Minas Gemis
Diretor: Orlando M . Carvalho
Faculdade de Direito (UFMG) - Av . Alvares Cabra·l. 211,
Sala, 1206 - Caixa Postal, 1301 - 30 000 - Belo Horizonte Minas Gerais, Brasil,
178 Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.o 1/2, 1987/1988
ｾ＠
THE COLLECTIVE BEHA VIOR FRAME\VORK
OF ROBERT E. P ARK
8 . E . Aguirre
Robert E. Park's. position as one of the towering found ing intellects of modern social sciences is wefl estab!ished. He had enormous influence as a teacher at the Univer-blished. He had enormous influence as a teaclisr at the Uni-sity of Chicago, and, as a thinker, his contributions to the study of urbanism and human ecology, race relations, and coflective behavior, to na!T'e just a few of his fields of interest, were dominant perspectivas at the time of their writing and continue to have resonance in the literatura today. The study of collective behavior and social movements has rece :ved during the last 25 years a great deal of attention by social scientists, some of whom may be unaware of Park's earlier contri butions .
The intent is to offer a systematic summation of Park's conceptual framework. The first part of the pape r oresents Park's view of the characteristics and d1stinguishing features of collecttve behavior and the forms of col !ective behavior or-dered in terms of their degree ot institutionalization. This is followed by Park's natural history approach to the conditions
ot coflective behavior. The third section presents his views of the functional consequences of coflective behavior for social adaptation . The pape r concludes with an .evaluation of his tramework.
Characteristícs of Col/ective Behavior
Park tells us that collective behavior is ''the behavior of individuais under the influence of an impulse that is common
and col lective, and impulse in other words, that is the result of social interaction (Park and Burgess, P. 865). He notes that at certain high leveis of collective excitement '' it not so much language ar gesture as the subtle suggestive influence of mere physical presence that is the med :um of communica-tion . lt is not so much a common purpose as a common mood
that seems to dominc.te the group (Park, 1931: p . 32); the persons "act under the influence of a mood ar a state of mind in which each shares, and in accordance which conventions which ali quite unconsciously accept, and which the presen. se of each enforces upon the others" (Park and Burgess., p.
865). Park continues elsewhere th at "in so far as every
indi-vidual in such an assemblage (collectivity) is moved to thintk and act under the influence of a mood ar state of mind, in which each shares and to which each contributes. the resulting behavior may be described as collective" (Park and Burgess,
p.
631).Park assigns two meanings to the term collective beha-vior. First, he uses the term to speak of societal processes, to include "ali the facts of group life'' (Park and Burgess, p .
924. In this usage collective behavior points to the process
whereby social arder and social contrai are continuously being recreated . In the second meaning of the term, Park uses it to describe "those phenomena which exhib :t in the most obvious and elementary way the processes by which societies are di-sintegrated into their constituent elements and the process by which these elements are brought together again into new re-lations to form new organizations and new soc 'eties" (Park and Burgess, pp. 924-925). lt is this second meaning which is of interest to us.
Multiple and equally important criteria are employed by Park to distinguish the nature of collective behavior: collec-tive behavior (A) marks the disruption of established routine;
ít challenges tradition; (B) is the mechanism whereby the pro-blems of individuais and families (caused by their economic, social, and status pos.itions and which cannot be resolved within the existing institutions) are resolved; (C) is the means through which society gradually adjusts itself more effectively to the ever.emerging problems facing it in the physical, orqa-nic, and s.ocial environments; (D) ultimately ends up in institu-tionalization of the collective solutions to problems ; this dialec-cal process of conflict and resolution is forever occurring in societies; (E) in its general meaning, describes the forming and
180 Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.o 1/2, 1987/1988
reforming of society ; institutions and social structures are both the ultim áte resu lt and cause of co 1lective behavior, which ari-ses because customs and mores impede continuous adjustment in the social structure.
As is. apparent from the preceeding , collective behavior emerges out of the personal d;sposition and the behavior of individua is. Individual unrest is caused by the (1) inability of the existing institutions to fulfill the emerging needs of persons and famílies., (2) the tension between the desires of man to fol-low his unrestrained impulses and the demands and obligations which result from hls involvement in systems of statuses and (3) the feelings of individuais that society does not grant them appropriate recognition (Turner, p. 191). Individual unrest be-comes social unrest as individuais afflicted by similar problems begin to communicate and interact. In situations where indi-viduais similarly affected perceive and respond sympatheti-cally, immediately, spontaneously, to the sentiment and atti-tude of others, an appropriate d 'spositional milieu to the emergence of collective behavior materializes. According to Pank, sympathetic responses among the people involved
"im-plies the existence in A of an attitude of receptivity and sug-gestibility toward the sentiments and attitude of B and C" (Park and Burgess., p. 893), which h as the effect of removing the natural reserves normally existing between interacting persons.
" . . . the effect of this circular form of interac-tion is to inc reas.e the tensions in the group and, by creating a state of expectancy, to mobil ize its members for collective action." (Park and Burgess,
p.
789)1t produces "a heightened, intensified, and relatlvt!'y mi-personal state of consciousness" (Park and Burgess, P. 893}.
In short, a collective sentiment emerges. This. new opinion , sentiment, ar orientation, is social and the property of the group (Park and Burgess, p. 34) . lt is this collective sentiment that informs the behavior of the participating individuais. lt represents what Park calls. ''a mood", directing the collective behavior of the group.
The scope and boundaries of col'ective behavior depend on the levei of abs.traction that Park grants to the concept. Park perceives collective beh avior as beinq continu ou s wit h other social processes. This is quite apparent in Park's
and collective, and impulse in other words, that is the result of social interaction (Park and Burgess, P. 865). He notes that at certain high leveis of collective excitement ''it not so much language or gesture as the subtle suggestive influence of mere physical presence that is the med :um of communica-tion. lt is not so much a common purpose as a common mood
that seems to dominc.te the group (Park, 1931: p. 32); the persons "act under the influence of a mood or a state of mind in which each shares, and in accordance which conventions which ali quite unconsciously accept, and which the presen. se of each enforcas upon the others" (Park and Burgess., p. 865). Park continues elsewhere that "in so ta r as every indi-vidual in such an assemblage (collectivity) is moved to thintk and act under the influence of a mood or state of mind, in which each shares and to which each contributes. the resulting behavior may be described as collective" (Park and Burgess,
p.
631).Park assigns two meanings to the term collective beha-vior. First, he uses the term to speak of societal processes, to include "ali the tacts of group life'' (Park and Burgess, p.
924. In this usage collective behavior points to the process
whereby social order and social contrai are continuously being recreated. In the second meaning of the term, Park uses it to describe "those phenomena which exhib :t in the most obvious and elementary way the processes by which societies are di-sintegrated into their constituent elements and the process by which these elements are brought together again into new re-lations to form new organizations and new soc:eties" (Park and Burgess, pp. 924-925). lt is this second meaning which is of interest to us.
Multiple and equally important criteria are employed by Park to distinguish the natura of collective behavior: collec-tive behavior (A) marks the disruption of established routine;
ít challenges tradition; (B) is the mechanism whereby the pro-blems of individuais and families (caused by their economic, social, and status pos.itions and which cannot be resolved within the existing institutions) are resolved; (C) is the means through which society gradually adjusts itself more effectively to the ever-emerging problems facing it in the physical, orqa-nic, and s.ocial environments; (D) ultimately ends up in institu-tionalization of the collective solutions to problems; this dialec-cal process of conflict and resolution is forever occurring in societies; (E) in its general meaning, describes the forming and
180
Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.o 1/2, 1987/1988reforming of society; institutions and social structures are both the ultimáte result and cause of coilective behavior, which ari-ses because customs and mores impede continuous adjustment in the social structure.
As is. apparent from the preceeding, collective behavior emerges out of the personal disposition and the behavior of individuais. Individual unrest is caused by the (1) inability of the existing institutions to fulfill the emerging needs of persons and families., (2) the tension between the desires of man to fol-low his unrestrained impulses and the demands and obligations which result from hls involvement in systems of statuses and (3) the teelings of individuais that society does not grant them appropriate recognition (Turner, p. 191). Individual unrest be-comes social unrest as individuais afflicted by similar problems begin to communicate and interact. In situations where indi-viduais similarly affected perceive and respond sympa'iheti-cally, immediately, spontaneously, to the sentiment and alti-tude of others, an appropriate d:spositional milieu to the emergence of collective behavior materializes. According to Pank, sympathetic responses among the people involved
"im-plies the existence in A of an altitude of receptivity and sug-gestibility toward the sentiments and attitude of B and C" (Park and Burgess., p. 893), which h as the effect of removing the natural reserves normally existing between interacting persons.
" .. . the effect of this circular form of interac-tion is to increase the tensions in the group and, by creating a state of expectancy, to mobilize its members for collective action." (Park and Burgess,
p.
789)lt produces "a heightened, intensified, and ｲ･ｬ｡ｴＱｶｾＧｙ＠ mi-personal state of consciousness" (Park and Burgess, P. 893).
In short, a collective sentiment emerges. This. new opinion, sentiment, or orientation, is social and the property of the group (Park and Burgess, p. 34). lt is this collective sentiment that informs the behavior of the participating individuais. lt represents what Park calls. ''a mood", directing the collective behavior of the group.
The scope and boundaries of col'ective behavior depend on the levei of abs.traction that Park grants to the concept. Park perceives collective behavior as beinq continuous with other social processes. This is quite apparent in Park's
ment of the crowd, for even as he adopts much of Le Bon's phraseology and negative frame of reference, accepting the idea that the crowd harms the individual personality, he sees the crowd in a social context, stressing its functions. He agrees that ours is an age of multitudes, of crowds. Moreover, as men-tioned earlier, incidents of collective behavior are clearly s.o-cial since they exhibit concerted action, evsn though the par-ticipants may not be aware of the causes and the ultimate consequences of their collective activities.
In accordance to his natural history model, every mani-festation of collective behavior shows three major chronolo-gical states.: (A) social unrest, (8) mass movement, (C) institu-tionalization (Park and Burgess, p. 786). Park states that the range of collective behavior is very wide, since it may include both emotional and highly rational behavior; "it may involve ali degrees of fusing of the individual awareness with that of the group, from the separateness. of discussion groups to the
sin-gle spirits. of the mob" (Park, p. 631). Consequently, Park's forms of collective behavior can be most parsimoniously ana-lyzed in accordance with their degree of institutional evolution (Park and Burgess, p. 874) rather than with the levei of irra-tionality they exhibit.
Park associated mechanisms of social contrai with each levei of institutionalization of the collective behavior forms. Rapport is the simplest form of social contrai and is exhibited more often in crowds. Laws, pub:ic opinions., and the m:>res are other types of social contrai characteristic of more advan-ced forms.
For Park, an institution consists of a concept and a struc-ture. The concept defines the purpose, interest, o r function cf the institution. The structure embodies the idea of the ins.-titution and furnishes the instrumentalities through which the
idea is put into action (Turner, p. 221). The term structure relates to both functionaries, buildings and the physical pro-perties of the institution as well as to the system of statuses and roles which the institution necessitates to function. lns-titutions must correspond to a social situation, a felt social need, i f they are to be effective. They much be supported by public opinion; ''otherwise they remain mere paper projects or artifacts that perform no real function" (Turner, P. 221).
The forms of collective behavior identified by Park can be arranged in accordance to their degree of institutionalization:
ｾＮｩ＠
182 Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.o 1/2, 1987/1988
--A. Social Unrest - In Park's scheme, the least institutio-nalized forms of collective behavior are:
1 . Social and psychic epidemics 2. The crowd
3. The public 4. The gang 5. Fashion 6. The strike
7. Panics, stampedes, and what he calls unorga-nized crowds.
Unorqanized crowds are uninstitutiona'ized borderfine forms in which Park showed much ambivalence. For instarce, he implied that since the person in a panic or in a stampede lacks psychic unity (Park and Burgess, p. 876), o r the ability to act concertedly and manifests a desire to protect himself even at the ｣ｯｾｴ＠ of others, then these social forms were not instances of collective behavior; "Men in a state of panic have like purposes but no common purpose" (Park and Burqess, p. 34), for ali social qroups, even the ones which show the least amount of institutionaPzation ard continuitv throuqh time, rave (a) a way or method of defining their aims and formulating their policies, making them explicit, and (b) some machinery, functionarv or other arrangement for realizing their aims and carrying their intention into effect.
The crowd has the following characteristtcs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The social and personal distinctions among the participants disappear.
The special talents and special knowledqe of the participants dis<>pr)ear, while th"l a+titudes, passions, and sentiments which are the com-mon heritaqe of mankind remains.
The individual toses the sense of respons.ibility for his actions.
The crowd itself is anonymous, has no genera'ly accepted function. is not recognized, and does not recognize itself in any corporate capacity. A common focus of attention (Park and Bur-gess, p. 593) .
A collective sentiment or mood (Park, P. 632).
ment of the crowd, for even as he adopts much of Le Bon's phraseology and negative trame of reference, accepting the idea that the crowd harms the individual personality, he sees the crowd in a social context, stressing its functions. He agrees that ours is an age of multitudes, of crowds. Moreover, as men-tioned earlier, incidents of collective behavior are clearly s.o. cial since they exhibit concerted action, evsn though the par-ticipants may not be aware of the causes and the ultimate consequences o f thei r collective activities.
In accordance to his natural history model, every mani-testation of collective behavior shows three major chronolo-gical states.: (A) social unrest, (8) mass movement, (C) institu-tionalization (Park and Burgess, p. 786) . Park states that the
range of collective behavior is very wide, since it may include both emotional and highly rational behavior; "it may involve ali degrees of fusing of the individual awareness with that of the group, from the separateness of discussion groups to the sin-gle spirits of the mob" (Park, p. 631). Consequently, Park's forms of collective behavior can be most parsimoniously ana-lyzed in accordance with their degree of institutional evolution (Park and Burgess, p. 874) rather than with the levei of irra-tionality they exhibit.
Park associated mechanisms of social contrai with each levei of institutionalization of the collective behavior forms. Rapport is the simplest form of social contrai and is exhibited more often in crowds. Laws, pub :ic opinions., and the m::>res are other types of social contrai characteristic of more advan-ced forms.
For Park, an institution consists of a concept and a struc-ture. The concept defines the purpose, interest, o r function cf the institution. The structure embodies the idea of the ins.-titution and furnishes the instrumentalities through which the idea is put into action (Turner, p. 221). The term structure relates to both functionaries, buildings and the physical pro-perties of the institution as well as. to the system of statuses and roles which the institution necessitates to function. lns-titutions must correspond to a social situation, a felt social need, i f they are to be effective. They much be supported by public opinion; ''otherwise they remain mere paper projects. o r artifacts that perform no real function" (Turner, P. 221) .
The forms of collective behavior identified by Park can be arranged in accordance to their degree of institutionalization:
ｾﾷﾷ＠
182 Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.o 1/2, 1987/1988A. Social Unrest- In Park's scheme, the least institutio-nalized forms of collective behavior are:
1 . Social and psychic epidemics 2. The crowd
3. The public 4. The gang 5. Fashion 6. The strike
7. Panics, stampedes, and what he calls unorga-nized crowds.
Unorqanized crowds are uninstitutiona'ized borderPne forms in which Park showed much ambivalence. For instarce, he implied that since the person in a panic or in a stampede lacks psychic unity (Park and Burgess, p. 876), o r the ability to act concertedly and manifests a desire to protect himself even at the ｣ｯｾｴ＠ of others, then these social forms were not instances of coflective behavior; "Men in a state of panic have like purposes but no common purpose" (Park and Burqess, p. 34), for ali social qroups, even the ones which show the least amount of institutionalization and continuitv throuqh time, rave (a) a way or method of defining their aims and formulating their policies, making them explicit, and (b) some machinery, functionary or other arrangement for reafizing their aims and carrying their intention into effect .
The crowd has the foflowing characteristtcs:
1 . The social and personal distinctions among the participants disappear.
2. The special talents and special knowledqe of the participants dis"pl")ear, while th<=! attitudes, passions, and sentiments which are the com-mon heritaqe of mankind remains.
3. The individual leses the sense of respons.ibility for his actions.
4. The crowd itself is anonymous, h as no generally accepted function, is not recognized, and does not recognize itself in any corporate capacity. 5. A common focus of attention (Park and
Bur-gess, p. 593) .
6. A coflective sentiment or mood (Park, P. 632).
The person in the crowd feels mental isolation and is prone to suqqestibility . The crowd has no h 'storical identity; "it has therefore neither symbols, ceremonies, rites., nor ritual ; it imposes no obligation and creates no loyalties" (Park and Burgess, p. 790) . A crowd is fo rmed when rapport develops between the participating ind ividuais. Rapport is prod uced by milling. Mutual res.ponsiveness and sympathy among the members ensures the creation of a collective representatio n to which ali conform (Park and Burgess, p. 893ff). Park's debt to G . Le Bon is his conception of the crowd is. qu ite obvi ou s. But he went beyond Le Bon in his emphasis on the public.
The public, like the crowd, exhibits a common purpose which dominate the participant. As in the crowd , ' ' . . .
indivi-duais are mutually responsive to the motives and interests of another" (Turner, p . 216). However, in the public no complete rapport is es.tablished and the individual is not dom :nated by the group to the extent that is true in the crowd.
Essentially, the public thrives in discus.s'on, in ration31 as-sessments of different points of view which allow for criticai judgement and differences of opin ions (Turner, p. 219). The public, like the crowd , is not institutionalized (Turner, p. 216) .
Social and psychic epidemics. are even more unexpecte d and irrational manifestations of widespread social d'sorg qniza-tion; they are crowd-like in nature, as are strikes and gang s (Turner, p . 260).
Parks identifies sects as expressiva and orgiastic crowds. However, política' and religious sects show a degree of con-tinuity and consc'ous organization that places them more ap-propriately in mass novements, the next subtypology of co llec-tive behavior to be cons.idered.
B. Mass Movements - In these instances of col!ective behavior a greater degree of institutionalization has taken place, although they still do not belong to the system of tra-ditions and norms of the society. This. subtypo logy includes the following forms of collective behavior:
1 .
Sects - both religious and political2.
Mass migration3. Crusades
4.
Reforms5. Labor movement
6 . Political partias
7. Revolution
8. War
ｾ Ｑｍ＠ Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/1 9, N.o 1/2, 1987/1988
Every mass movement has some organization and direc-tlon . C!ear leadership emerges as well as a division of labo r and discipline . Mass social movements "exhibit a cyc le of typical events which take place in a more or less. regular and pred :ctable way" (Hughes, p. 32). Social movements have a natural history.
Sects, according to Park, reject segments of the esta-blished system of mores . The group constituting the s.ect adopts id'osyncratic modes of speech and dress (Turner, p. 233ft). Park recognizes. that sects have the same origins and same natural history as other forms of collective behav 'or. Ho-wever, sects develop a body of doctrine and dogma e.s well as a body of functionaries and administrators to advance the aoa1s of the aro11o (TurMr, p . 234). Outside oerc:;.ecution
and interference tend to solidify the sect and contribute to its institutiona'ization . The major characteristic of sects is their intransigency and radicalism, ·especially during their early years.
Park distinguishes between two types of sects - the po-lítica! and the religious . He notes that their difference can be traced back to their oriqins as social unrests. As crowds, the po'itical sect is an extroverted group (Hughes, p. 26), while religious sects are typically introverted crowds - t hev with-draw from this world . Religious sects "characteristically have at some time in their history been ba'ked in their efforts to act. .. they have suffered some sort of psychic trauma, from the conseauences of which they have never recovered" (Hug-hes, p. 28). ·
Revolution, according to Park, usually originates in po-lítica! sects (Hughes, p. 27) . Revolutions find fertile social ground not in conditions of hardships and poverty, but instead in conditions of pros.perity; their origins can be traced back to the hopes and dreams of men (Park and Burgess, p. 877H). Often they facilitate the formation of political parties, throuqh which the leadership maintains contrai over its partisans. Park c!istinguishes between revolutions and histor1cal revolutions; the latter refers to great and subtle changes which characte-rize modern civilization. ''These changes are revolutionary in nature but they are neither intended not recognized as revo-lution until they are historv" (Park and BurÇJess, p . 934 . In contrast to the sects., "political partias are characteristically accomodating and compromising" (Hughes,
p.
27) .The person in the crowd feels mental isolation and is prone to suqqestibility . The crowd has no h'storical identity ; "it has therefore neither symbols, ceremonies, rites, nor ritual; it imposes no obligation and creates no loyalties" (Park and Burgess, p. 790) . A crowd is fo rmed when rapport develops between the participating ind ividuais . Rapport is produced by milling. Mutual res.ponsiveness and sympathy among the members ensures the creation of a collective representatio n to which ali conform (Park and Burgess, p. 893ff). Park's debt to G . Le Bon is his conception of the crowd is. quite obvious. But he went beyond Le Bon in his emphasis on the public.
The public, like the crowd, exhibits a common pu rpose which dominate the participant. As in the crowd, ' '. . .
indivi-duais are mutually responsive to the motives and interests of another" (Turner, p . 216). However, in the public no complete rapport is established and the individual is not dom:nated by the group to the extent that is true in the crowd.
Essentially, the public thrives in discuss'on, in ration3 f as-sessments of different points of view which allow for criticai judgement and differences of opin ions (Turner, p. 219) . Th e public, fike the crowd , is not institutionalized (Turner, p. 216) . Social and psychic epidemics are even more unexpected and irrational manifestations of widespread social d'sorg qniza-tion; they are crowd-like in nature, as are strikes and gangs {Turner, p. 260).
Parks identifies sects as expressive and orgiastic crowds. However, pofitical and religious sects show a degree of con-tinuity and consc'ous organization that places them more ap-propriately in mass novements, the next subtypology of co llec-tive behavior to be cons.idered.
B . Mass Movements - In these instances of collective behavior a greater degree of institutionalization has taken place, although they still do not befong to the system of tra-ditions and norms of the society. This subtypology includes the following forms of collective behavior:
1 . Sects - both religious and political 2 . Mass migration
3. Crusades 4. Reforms
5.
Labor movement 6. Politicaf parties 7. Revolution8. War
ｾ ＱＸＴ＠ Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/ 19, N.o 1/2, 1987/1988
Every mass movement has some organization and direc-tion . Clear leadership emerges as well as a division of labo r and discipline . Mass social movements "exhibit a cyc le of typical events which take place in a more or less. regular and pred :ctable way" (Hughes, p. 32) . Social movements have a natural history .
Sects, according to Park, reject segments of the esta-blished system of mores. The group constituting the s.ect adopts id 'osyncratic modes of speech and dress (Turner, p. 233ft). Park recognizes. that sects have the same origins and same natural history as other forms of collective behav'or. Ho-wever, sects. devefop a body of doctrine and dogma e.s w el l as a body of functionaries and administrators to advance the aoa1s of the aroJJo (TurMr, p. 234) . Outside oerc:;ecution
and interference tend to solidify the sect and contribute to its institutiona'ization . The major characteristic of sects is their intransigency and radicalism, ·especially during their early years.
Park distinguishes between two types of sects - the po-litical and the religious . H e notes. that their d'fference can be traced back to their oriqins as social unrests. As crowds, the po'itical sect is an extràverted group (Hughes, p . 26), while religious sects are typically introverted crowds - thev with-draw from this world . Religious sects "characteristicalfy have at some time in their history been ba'ked in their efforts to act. .. they have suffered some sort of psychic trauma, from the conseauences of which they have never recovered" (Hug-hes,
p .
28). ·Revolution, according to Park, usually originates in po-litical sects (Hughes, p. 27). Revolutions find fertile social ground not in conditions of hardships and poverty, but instead in conditions of pros.perity; their origins can be traced back to the hopes and dreams of men (Park and Burgess, p. 877ft). Often they facilitate the formation of political parties, throuqh which the leadership maintains contrai over its partisans. Park distinguishes between revolutions and histor!cal revolutions; the latter refers to great and subtle changes which characte-rize modern civilization . ''These changes are revolutionary in nature but they are neither intended not recognized as revo-lution until they are historv" (Park and BurÇJess, p . 934 . In contrast to the sects, "pol itical parties are characteristically accomodating and compromising" {Hughes, p . 27) .
Consistent with the evolutionary and natural history model, Park rejects the notion that revolutionary changes cannot be included within an evolutionary perspectiva. He insists that revo!utionary changes are themselves the fruit of evolutio-nary processes that can be described, studied, and analyzed us.ing the natural history approach. The only difference in chan-ges brought about by revolutions and wars is their suddenness and great magnitude. In fact, Park calls ali changes brought about by social movements mutations - "mutations that are planned and promoted." (Hughes, p. 61)
Reform movements are characteristically the product of modem I!fe . They tend to fumish a vocation and a profession to some people, much as potitics is the arena of the
profes-sional politician. Reform, unlike revolution, does not "seek to change the mores but rather to change conditions. in confor-mity with the (existing) mores."
Mass migrations are the most elementary forms of mass social movements (Hughes, p. 60). Crusades, both reforma-torv and religious, depend for their success on the ability of their leaders to tap some common human sentiment (Park and Burgess, p. 877) . Park distinauishes crusades from revo1 u-tions; ''crusades are political attempts to correct a reconnized evil and revolutions are a radic8l attemnt to reform an existing social order." (Park and Burgess, p. 878)
Conditions of Coflective Behavior
Park's bas.ic model utilizes the natural history aporoach for the studv of cofler.tive behavior . Anolied to th"' st"dv of collective behavior, this meant that Park would study the
se-｡ｵ･ｮ｣･ｾ＠ thro11nh which a social unrest would eventually
be-come institutionalized.
Park's model for the explanation of the social oroces<>es which create social movements and their event11al institutio-nalization was orimqrily a contanion model. Persons with common prob'ems conoregate. milling occurs and the mere phvsical oroximitv of the particioants. as well as the other forms of interaction that would take p'ace among them, accen-tuates in each individual a feeling of svmpathv and recenti-veness for the feeling and interest of others . Th;s is wl1at PA •k called a circular reaction, resu!ting in a heightening of the
point of agreement between the participants - rapport
-1"86 Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18119, N.o 1/2, 1987/1988
and in loss of criticai judgment. Thus a collective representa-tion is crated and the group acts. lts acrepresenta-tions can be either reflective or expressiva, and characteristically the group adopts a stance vis-a-vis the dominant system of values., ranging from reformation to rejection and revolution.
The link between the initial unplanned emergence of an instance of colfective behavior, (at the social unrest levei) and its evolution into a mass movement is not clearly delineated by Park . H e says that eventually the need is felt to formalize the social unrest into a system of leadership, and that is divi-sion of labor, a dogma, and a body of values material"zes. Apparently, institutiona1ization takes place only if a widespread
social need exists to which the social unrest corresponds and is the symptom of and which is not appropriately resolved by the existinq social system. This is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the institutionalization of ins.tances of socia' unrest.
For Park the proliferation of instances of collective beha-vior is the result of the pecufiarities of modem civilization and the oreat urban centers where men re'ate to each other "svm-biotically rather than socially." Modem civilization has not
develooed a tradition, a body of mores, or a moral solidarity sufficient to insure either the perpetuation of existtnll social ｩｮｳｴｩｴｵｴｩｯｮｾＮ＠ or the order'v succes-sion of those economic, political and cultural chan-ges which embody the aspirations of the modem world . (Hughes, p. 341)
Modem civilization is marked by its areat
ｴ･ｲｲｩｴｯｲｩｾｬ＠
size and the magnitude of its diverse cultural centers; by the immense com-plexity and interdependence of modem industry and society in general; by the increasing speed in the rate of mobi'ity of physical entities, (migration, communication); by advances in technology and science; and by the great increase in freedom Which modem man experiences: freedom of self-expression and self-revelation, freedom to move about, and freedom to compete for an occupation .Modem man is released from the bonds of traditional fa-milial and tribal loyalties as the result of these social chan-ges. His character becomes "enlightened" and sympathetical-ly attuned to the interests of others., develop ing his rational faculties and rejectin, much that is customary and magical. At
Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.0 1/2, 1987/1988
J
Consistent with the evolutionary and natural history model, Park rejects the notion that revo lutionary changes cannot be included within an evolutionary perspective. He insists that revo!ution ary changes are themse lves the fruit of evolutio-nary processes that can be described , studied, and analyzed us.ing the natural history approach. The only difference in chan-ges brought about by revolutions and wars is their suddenness and great magnitude . In fact, Park calls ali changes brought about by social movements mutations - "mutations that are planned and promoted ." (Hughes, p. 61)
Reform movements are characteristically the product of modern life. They tend to furnish a vocation and a profession to some people, much as politics is the arena of the profes-sional politician. Reform, unlike revolution, does not "seek to change the mores but rather to change conditions. in
confor-mity with the (existing) mores."
Mass migrations are the most elementary forms of mass social movements (Hughes, p . 60). Crusades, both reforma-torv and religious, depend for their success on the ability of their leaders to tap some common human sentiment (Park and Burgess, p. 877) . Park distinauishes crusades from revo'u-tions; ''crusades are political attempts to correct a reconnized evil and revolutions are a radic 81 attemnt to reform an existing social order." (Park and Burgess, p. 878)
Conditions of Coflective Behavior
Park's basic model utilizes the natural history aporoach for the studv of col'er.tive beha"ior . Anolied to thq st11dv of collective beh avior, this meant that Park would study the
se-ｱｵ･ｮ｣･ｾ＠ thro11nh which a social unrest would eventually
be-come instltutionalized.
Park's model for the explanation of the social oroces<>es which create social movements and their event11al institutio-na'ization was orimqrily a contanion model . Persons with common prob'ems conaregate. milling occurs and the mere phvsical oroximitv of the particioants. as well ac; the other forms of interaction that would take p'ace among them, accen-tuates in each individual a feeling of svmpathv and recenti-veness for the feeling and interest of others . Th; s is what PB•k called a circular reaction, resu !ting in a heightening of the
point of agreement between the participants - rapport
-186 Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v . 18/19, N.o 1/2, 1987/1988
and in loss. of criticai judgment . Thus a collective representa-tion is crated and the group acts. lts acrepresenta-tions can be either reflective or expressíve, and characteristically the group adopts a stance vis-a-vis the dominant system of values., ranging from reformation to rejection and revolution.
The link between the initial unplanned emergence of an instance of co11ective behavior, (at the social unrest levei) and
its evolution into a mass movement is not clearly delineated by Park. H e says that eventually the need is felt to formalize the social unrest into a system of leadership, and that is divi-sion of labor, a dogma, and a body of values material"zes. Apparently, institutiona1ization takes place only if a widespread
social need ex!sts to which the social unrest corresponds and is the symptom of and which is not appropriately resolved by the existinq social system . This is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the institutionalization of ins.tances of socia' unrest.
For Park the proliferation of instances of collective beha-vior is the result of the peculiarities of modern civilizat ion and the oreat urban centers where men re'ate to each other "svm-biotically rather than socially." Modern civilization has not
develooed a tradition, a body of mores, or a moral s.olidarity sufficient to insure either the perpetuation of existtn11 social institution<>. or the order'v succes-sion of thos.e economic, political and cultural chan-ges which embody the aspirations of the modern world . (Hughes, p . 341)
Modern civilization is marked by its areat territori"ll size and the magnitude of its diverse cultural centers ; by the immense com-plexity and interdependence of modern industry and society in general; by the increasing speed in the rate of mobi 'ity of physical entities, (migration, communication); by advances in technology and science; and by the great increase in freedom Which modern man experiences: freedom of self-expression and self-revelation, freedom to move about, and freedom to compete for an occupation .
Modern man is released from the bonds of tradit ional fa-milial and tribal loyalties as the result of these social chan-ges. His character becomes "enlightened" and sympathetica l-ly attuned to the interests of others., develop ing his rational faculties and rejectin, much that is custom ary and magical. At
the same time that these changes are takin place, the trad i-tional, sacred moral solidarity of society weakens. Park notices the increasing s.ecularization of ali social relations; the ind ivi-dual develops secondary relations at the expense of his pr.ma-ry ties (Park, 1931, p . 35) .
lt is in this context of increased social and cultural com-plexity that Park searched for the background conditions of collective behavior:
Individuais reteased from old associations enter ali the more readily into new ones . Out of this con-fusion new and strange política! and religious move-ments arise, which represent the groping of men for a new social order (Park and Burgess, p . 867).
In sum, Park poses a cumulation of social and psycholo-gical processes in his exptanation of collective behavior. He perceives modern man as alienated from the traditionat system of mores and customs . Psychologically, man is. isolated and groping for meaning in life. Thus, col'ective behavior is the result of man's efforts to alleviate the problems of his human condition . This mode of conceotualization is a ref1ect'on of
Park's life-tong ｩｮｴ･ｲ･ｾｴ＠ in conflict. In Park's system, the evo-lution of collective behavior is cvclical . lt is a dia'ectical model which is cyclical in its emphasis on process . The pro-cess whereby the social structure is adapted to the needs. of the individual has a pattern, a natural history, a repe " +able sequence ali its own and independent of space and time. Con -sequently, Park is not concerned with specific oroblems of s.o-cietal stability. Col!ective behavior never ceases .
Consequences of Collective Behavior
Park, for ali his evo'utionary perspective, vac illated in the implications of the macro-societal transformations he des-cribed. He thought that man's lifeway was becoming increa-singly complicated , but he did not associate this social trans-formation with unmixed progress (Hughes, pp . 333-334) .
Mo-reaver, tatent forces dominated the historical process quite apart from man's manifest intentions.
1S8
Industrial democracy, or something correspon-dlng to it is coming. lt is coming not entirely
becau-Rev. de
c.
Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.0 1/2, 1987/1988se of social agitaiion . lt is coming, perhaps, in spite of agitation . lt is a social change, but it is pa rt of the whole cosmic process.. (Park and Burgess, p .
832) .
Although he associated collective behavior w ith a natural history approach, Park conceived the possibility that soc:at unrest a-nd instances of collective behavior could mark. not a process of societal reintel'jration, but, rather, the dissolution of ali civilized social ties . Social unrest cou ld become dysfunc-tional if its magnitude and the rate of its occurrence reached such leveis. that ' 'the whole existing social structure is im oai -red, if society is, for that reason, not able to readjust itself." (Park and Burgess, p. 926) .
The consequences of collective behavior for the individual could be to alleviate his personal problems . Park s.tated that the conflict between the individual and the social structure often finds resolution in mental illness and other manifestations of psychic impairment. Thus, the exis.tence of collective bê-havior was a healthy sign of the viability, dynamism, and f'ui-dity of the social system and a realistic method of coping with problems .
Concfusion
Park's contributions to our understanding of collective be-havior are many . Among the most significant are :
a) his distinction between crowd and public,
b) his break with the conservative European tradition re-presented by Le Bon, in his emphasis on the functional , adaptive effects of collective behavior,
c) his. integrative, overarching conceptual framework of collective behavior forms, establishing the ana'ytical commonalities of otherwise dissimilar events such as social movements, panics and crowds .
His leÇJacy is very much ative and well today . His symbolic interactionist perspective is at the center of emerqent norms thcory of collective behavior . His emphas.is on institu-tional'zation and organization is at the foundation of reso urce mobilization theory; his partia! adoption of the Le Bon !an
the same time that these changes are takin place, the tradi-tional, sacred moral solidarity of society weakens. Park notices the increasing s.ecularization of ali social relations; the ind ivi-dual develops secondary relations at the expense of his pr.ma-ry ties (Park, 1931, p . 35).
1t is in this context of increased social and cultural com-plexity that Park searched for the background conditions of collective behavior:
Individuais released from old associations enter ali the more readily into new ones . Out of this con-fusion new and strange political and religious move-ments arise, which represent the groping of men for a new social order (Park and Burgess, p . 867).
In sum, Park poses a cumulation of social and psycholo-gical processes in his explanation of collective behavior. He . perceives modern man as alienated from the traditional system of mores and customs. Psychologically, man is. isolated and groping for meaning in life. Thus, coJiective behavior is the result of man's efforts to alleviate the problems of his human condition . This mode of conceotualization is a ref1ect'on of
Park's life-long interest in conflict. In Park's system, the evo-lution of collective behavior is cvc'ical . lt is a dia'ectical model which is cyclical in its emphasis on process. The pro-cess whereby the social structure is adapted to the needs. of the indivõdual has a pattern, a natural history, a repe "' tabte sequence ali its own and independent of space and time. Con-sequently, Park is not concerned with specific oroblems of s.o-cietal stability. Collective behavior neve r ceases.
Consequences of Collective Behavior
Park, for ali his evotutionary perspective, vacillated in the implications of the macro-societal transformations he des-cribed. He thought that man's lifeway was becoming increa-singly complicated, but he did not associate this social trans-formation with unmixed progress (Hughes, pp. 333-334). Mo-reaver, latent forces dominated the historical process quite apart from man's manifest intentions.
Hl8
Industrial democracy, or something correspon-dlng to it is coming. lt is coming not entirely
becau-Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.0 1/2, 1987/1988
se of social agitation . lt is coming, perhaps, in spite of agitation. lt is a social change, but it is part of the whole cosmic process.. (Park and Burgess, p .
832) .
Although he associated collective behavior w ith a natural history approach, Park conceived the possibility that soc:al unrest a•nd instances of collective behavior could mark. not a process of societal reinter.ration, but, rather, the dissolution of ali civilized social ties. Social unrest coutd beco me dysfunc-tional if its magnitude and the rate of its occurrence reached such leveis. that ''the whole existing social structure is imoai-red, if society is, for that reason, not able to readjust itself." (Park and Burgess, p. 926).
The consequences of collective behavior for the individual could be to alleviate his personal problems. Park s.tated that the conflict between the individual and the social structure often finds resolutõon in mental illness and other manifestations of psychic impairment. Thus, the exis.tence of collective
be-havior was a healthy sign of the viability, dynamism, and f'ui-dity of the social system and a realistic method of coping with problems.
Concfusion
Park's contributions to our understanding of collective be-havior are many. Among the most significant are:
a) his distinction between crowd and public,
b) his break with the conservative European tradition re-presented by Le Bon, in his emphasis on the functional , adaptive effects of collective behavior,
c) his. integrative, overarchíng conceptual framework of col'ective behavior forms, establishing the ana'ytical commonalities of otherwise dissimílar events such as social movements, panics and crowds.
His legacy is very much alive and well today . His symbollc interactionist perspectiva is at the center of emeraent norms thcory of collective behavior . His emphas.is on institu-tional'zation and organization is at the foundation of reso urce mobilization theory ; his partia! adoption of the Le Bon :an
approach to collective behavior, with its emphasis on psycho-Iogical deficits, is at the heart of relative deprivation and sta-tus inconsistency formulations . In short, many seemingly opposed contemporary perspectivas in the field of collective behavior and social movements can trace descent from Robert E . Park.
There are a number of problems too. lt is unclear how Park conceives the Iinkage between instances of soc:al unrest a.nd institutions.
In his discussion of crowds, an instance of social unrest which has a central importance in his work, Park accepts much of Le Bon's neqative views of the crowd and of its effects on the psychologica! well-being of the oarticipants. Unlike Le Bon, however, who arrive at a pessimistic conclusion from a con-sideration of the effects of unrestrained popular participation in the affairs of society, Park assigns to collective behavior a beneficiai effect in modern societ'es. However, is unc1ear how
Park could logically and consistently derive from a situation of social unrest marked by behavioral and psychological re-troqression at the indiv'dual levei, a functional and positi"e
effect of the same instance of soci'3.1 unrest at the societal levei. Presumably dramatic transformations wou1d become necessary so that the common good would be advanced from a temporary base of human misery. The di e.Iectic contradic-tion is that, for Park, who assumes that ind:viduals are a consequence of society and not the reverse, as in social con-tract theories, collective behavior breaks down society - the source of individual reality - even as it bu'lás col'ective, ｾｾＢＭ｡ﾭ
red social meaninqs. Collective behavior is both a destroyer and a builder of nomic worlds.
Park assumes ever-recurring change to be the subject matter of sociological concern . He uses as data anecdotes of cases which confirm his theory, nevar mentioning a negativa case representing an exceotion to his generalizations. No r does. he state his hypothesis or the limits of his work clearly. lndeed, he has been characterized as being "guided by •ntui-tion rather th9.n by systematic concerns" (Turner, p . XVII). Park is interested in understanding the social world. He s.e-arched for the meaning and causes of human acts and did not deal with statistics and other quantifiable information. His dependence on sympathetic introspection to understand'ng human motives and the emphasis he placed on participant ob-servation, life histories, Ietters, and other personal documents
190 Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.0 1/2, 1987/1988
makes his conclusions difficult to duplicata. He assumed that Iife in society is marked by the tendency of social institutions to accomodate and be responsive to the desires of
indivi-duais. This is only one, and perhaps not the most plausible conception of the relationship between the individual and the structures of social domination, for its suffused notion of so-cial-progress-as-social-evolution is nowadays wide ly d.scre-dited.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HUGHES, E . C . , et. al. (eds . ) Works of Robert E . Park: Society; Collectl-ve Behavior; News &. Opinion; Sociology and Modem Society. The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois. V o!. 3, 1955 .
PARK, Robert E., "Collective Behavior". In: ESS, Vol. 3, pp . 631-633. PARK, Robert E. & E.W. Burgess, Introduction to the Science of Sacio·
logy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1924.
TURNER, R.H . (ed . ), Robert E. Park on Social Control and Collective Behavior. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1967. ·
YOUNG, Kimball (ed.), Social Attitudes. Henry Holt & Co., New York, 1931. Chapter li, "Hurnan Nature, Attitudes, & the Mores," by R . E Park. pp. 17-45 .
approach to collective behavior, with its emphasis on psycho-logical deficits, is at the heart of relativa deprivation and sta-tus inconsistency formu lations . In short, many seeming ly opposed contemporary perspectivas in the field of collective behavior and social movements can trace descent from Robert E. Park .
There are a number of problems too . lt is unclear how Park conceives the linkage between instances of soc:al unrest
a.nd institutions.
In his discussion of crowds, an instance of social unreqt which has a central importance in his work, Park accepts much of Le Bon 's neqative views of the crowd and of its effects on the psychologica! well-being of the oarticipants. Unlike Le Bon, however, who arrive at a pessimistic conclusion from a con-sideration of the effects of unrestrained popular participation in the affairs of society, Park assigns to collective behavior a beneficiai effect in modern societ;es . However, is unc1ear how
Park could logically and consistently derive from a situation of social unrest marked by behavioral and psychological re-troqression at the individual levei, a functional and positi,,e effect of the same instance of soci'3.1 unrest at the societal levei. Presumably dramatic transformations wou'd become necessary so that the common good would be advanced from a temporary base of human misery . The di alectic contradic-tion is that, for Park, who assumes that ind ;viduals are a cons.equence of society and not the reverse, as in social con-tract theories, collective behavior breaks down society - the source of individual reality - even as it buõlás col'ective,
Rha-red social meaninqs . Collective behavior is both a destroyer and a builder of nomic worlds .
Park assumes ever-recurring change to be the subject matter of sociological concern . He uses as data anecdotes of cases wh ich confirm his theory, never mentioning a negative case representing an exceotion to his generalizations. No r does. he state his hypothesis or the limits of his work clearly. lndeed, he has been characterized as being "guided by ;ntui-tion rather ｴｨ ｾｮ＠ by systematic concerns" (Turner, p . XVII) . Park is interested in understanding the social world . He s.e-arched for the meaning and causes of human acts and did not deal with statistics and other quantifiable information . His dependence on sympathetic introspection to understand ing human motives and the emphasis he placed on participant ob-servation, life histories, letters, and other personal documents
190 Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.o 1/2, 1987/1988
J..._
makes his conclusions difficult to duplicata. He assumed that life in soc iety is marked by the tendency of social inst itutions to accomodate and be responsive to the desires of indivi-duais. This is only one, and perhaps not the most plausible conception of the relationship between the individual and the structures of social domination, for its suffused notion of so-cial-progress-as,-social-evolution is nowadays wide ly d,scre-dited .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HUGHES, E. C ., et. al. (eds . ) Works o f Robert E . Park : Society; Co/lectl-ve Behavior; News &. Opinion; Sociology and Modem Society. The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois . V oi. 3, 1955 .
PARK, Robert E . , "Collective Behavior". In : ESS, Vol. 3, pp . 631-633 . PARK, Robert E . & E . W . Burgess, Introduction to the Science oj Socio·
logy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1924 .
TURNER, R . H . (ed . ), Robert E. Park on Social Control and Collective Behavior. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1967.
YOUNG, Kimball (ed . ), Social Attitudes. Henry Holt & Co., New York, 1931. Chapter li, "Human Nature, Attitudes, & the Mores," by R . E Park. pp . 1745 .
Rev. de C. Sociais, Fortaleza, v. 18/19, N.0 1/2, 1987/1988
